Fallout Fanon Wiki talk:Tranquility Lane Rules
what does WIP mean? It means "work in progress", I'll edit it to say that. Composite 4 16:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Oh thank you kind sir. You guys are nicer then the Naruto Fanon wiki. maybe I might join. I'm a Machinima fan too Alright, so, with the WIP tag things, that only counts for articles that are actively being worked on, right? I've got 3 right now, but I've also got a bunch of red links. Those red links don't count towards my WIP count, do they? --Twentyfists 16:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC) No, they don't. Composite 4 16:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC) I must bring up the "Seperate timeline" thing for RPs. It won't work. It can't work. Solely for the fact that it's how almost every major thing on this site has based on for the past several monthes. If it's unofficial, then we've got to remove everything from RPing in the articles or be called hypocrites. I think you see my point here. Plus it would kill activity on the site. KuHB1aM 10:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC) I am sure as hell Run didn't choose that rule or even get told about it. I really and truly do not think you, C4, should be the one choosing RP rules because you do not participate in any. So, now you have to go on a deleting spree and delete all of the RP articles, (Western Brotherhood of Steel Outcast Division etc.) and now Bren isn't dead because he didn't even meet Jacob! //--TehK 11:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC) And now the Crusade is still in far north-western D.C., the Outcasts never left Fort Independence, Jacob's page will be shortened by half a mile, blah blah blah blah.... yeah, the list goes on and on and on. The rule doesn't make sense. KuHB1aM 13:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Wait,does it mean that it's unofficial to canon or fanon? Fniff1 14:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Actually, thats written into the timeline with Jacob and Bren's articles. I agreed to this after the Liberty Prime incident. I'll be expanding that rule soon. //--Run4urLife! 14:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC) XD Oh, how you guys jump to conclusions. There is a tidbit up there about the rules being worked on, I hope some of you read that. And TK, you're in no position to tell me what I can and cannot do, not to mention I discussed that rule with Run4 before submitting it. Composite 4 15:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC) (This is Kuhblam; don't feel like logging in.) C4, I don't require sarcasm. If I wanted sarcasm, I would have gone to my dad and asked him if the sky is blue, or if the sun is in outer space. Duh I read the unofficial part. If it was official, do you think I'd be trying to push my point on changing something? Anyhow, Run4's edit works for me. I rest my case. 01:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC) You don't require it? Well, I'll be sure to ask you next time I want to be sarcastic. Damn, there I go again! Composite 4 01:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC) *Sigh* 01:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC) For a person in power, C4 really does insult people a lot.--Zilabus 22:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC) "Do not make a canon character and put them in a situation after their canon appearances." Does this mean I can't idly mention them? Jetholt (Jetty) 17:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC) :That's ok, but don't make something batshit insane, like Frank Horrigan showing up to someone's birthday party and playing Guitar Hero or such. //--Run4urLife! 17:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC) ::So is my character being brought up by Confessor Cromwell OK? Jetholt (Jetty) 18:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC) I'd say that isn't okay, giving a canon character a child is not kosher. [Composite 4] (My Talk) :Adopted Child. //--Run4urLife! 18:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC) That's okay then. [Composite 4] (My Talk) Thanks Guys. :D Jetholt (Jetty) 18:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Ibram Chase, destroy him! //--TehK 18:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Yes being the great-grandson of a canon character is realy putting the canon character in a non canon situation :DVegas adict 18:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC) :Well, C4 just said "I'd say that isn't okay, giving a canon character a child is not kosher." //--TehK 19:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Timeline Alright, lemme get this straight. There's the "actual" fanon timeline and the "RP" fanon timeline. The actual fanon timeline follows canon to the letter, while the RP fanon timeline is the one used in RPs, and it diverges around the Siege of Fairfax or so. And this is so new users and non-RP pages will not have to conform to the standards set by RPs and the information that came from them. Is that correct? --Twentyfists 16:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC) You hit the nail on the head. Composite 4 17:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Thats about it. Made an edit that sets the RP Timeline as the mainstream, and to mark stuff as not part of it if you want to ignore the RPs in an article. //--Run4urLife! 20:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC) No travel So someone cant go from the northen point of america into canada or from texas to mexicoVegas adict 20:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC) :I think he means continental. //--TehK 21:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC) ::Probably. It's common sense really. So Vegas, in a situation where common sense might come in handy, please borrow someone's common sense, as you display a disturbing lack of your own. //--Run4urLife! 21:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Cursing? Any rules about language? --Mgranaa 00:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC) :Depends on the context. //--Run4urLife! 01:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Curse if you want, just make sure you don't sound like a cock doing it. Composite 4 There are some spelling errors on here. I'm not trying to be a douche, but I figure that I'd point that out, seeing as I cannot fix them myself. Sound0ut 11:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Like? [Composite 4] (My Talk) Move Couldn't this page be moved to Fallout Fanon Wiki:Tranquility Lane Rules. It makes more sense since it is a wiki-policy related page. //--TehK (tok) 20:37, September 10, 2009 (UTC) :Excellent point. //--''Run4My Talk'' 22:09, September 10, 2009 (UTC) New Rule How about a rule that reads something like this: --Twentyfists 03:40, November 12, 2009 (UTC) And while I'm at it, how about a rule stating "The quote template exists for a reason. Please use it." --Twentyfists 03:41, November 12, 2009 (UTC) Good idea. //--''Run4My Talk'' 06:50, November 12, 2009 (UTC) That rule could be written as "The canon has already been written, do not rewrite it." //--TehK (tok) 12:07, November 12, 2009 (UTC) Erm, when will the rules on Fallout: New Vegas show up?Seqeu0 13:50, November 2, 2010 (UTC) What do you mean? These rules apply to all articles. Composite 4 Clarification Needed I was reading over the rules and am starting to find them kind of limiting: *No large militarized groups. I suppose this is sort of linked with the No splinter cells of canon factions, such as the BoS, NCR, and the Enclave, which is understandable, as I'm sure that for the most part everyone and their brother that visits wants to do their version. However, what if, for example, someone were to create a group similar to the Boomers from F: NV? Would they qualify as a large militarized group or a just a very well-armed settlement? Which leads me to my next issue: *Limits to the size of the settlement Groups can't contol anything bigger than a moderate sized town? If that's going to be the limit (though I don't really think it should be), that's very subjective. What qualifies as a "moderate-sized town"? The Captain (radio) 19:19, December 9, 2010 (UTC) We leave that decision up to you as long as you remain reasonable in your decision. If it becomes obvious it's more than a moderate town we'll just let you know. Also, towns can naturally advance into bigger communities (as all towns do eventually) it's just a matter of providing a natural, plausible and believable story progression. Composite 4 Well alrighty then. The Captain (radio) 06:42, December 10, 2010 (UTC) There is no official Fallout 3 outcome canon Given all the ways there are to complete fallout 3, and there is no official evidence on the canon outcome, why should there be anyrule to follow those outcomes on the mainpage, why does one user get to decide the fate of megaton or paradise falls or Tenpenny tower? There shouldn't be any guidelines for the outcome of the events of fallout 3 until a future game establishes what occurred. --LordVukodlak 00:22, February 26, 2011 (UTC) :Some of it is intended to be neutral: didn't blow up Megaton or disarm the bomb, didn't take sides at Tenpenny Tower, etc. Others choices were made to remove their use as precedent: we don't want authors churning out fanon articles for androids, superheroes, and vampires.--OvaltinePatrol 00:32, February 26, 2011 (UTC) ::What do articles about androids, superhroes, and vampries have to do with what I said? absolutely nothing. In what world does an EU completely match up when it has more then one author. And if Fallout 1 and 2 are to be a judge, the canon outcome would all be a heroic lone wanderer not neutral. ::LordVukodlak 00:44, February 26, 2011 (UTC) ::::::You're complaining about our stance on Fallout 3's events. I'm explaining the thinking behind the rules we set up. Furthermore, it wasn't one person who decided this, it was agreed upon by the admins and our bureaucrat. If a future game specifically addresses these things, we can change and remove things as necessary as we had to do with the New Vegas articles after Fallout: New Vegas came out. In the mean time, our accepted canon is that the LW did the bare minimum to complete the story, diverging from the path only to destroy the most retarded stuff present in the game or to preserve the status quo. Finally there's a standard we're trying to maintain and allowing some of the more lore-unfriendly and ridiculous aspects of Fallout 3 stand as precedent for authors to base their creations on would be counterproductive. So in fact everything I said was relevant and apropos to your query, but feel free to keep copping an attitude. Nothing like alienating the most active admin to get things started on the right foot ^.^--OvaltinePatrol 00:59, February 26, 2011 (UTC) :::::::Its still not relievent, how are the events around megaton, tenpenny, paradise falls, arefu etc involve anything lore un-friendly. I'm not talking about vampires, superheroes or aliens(which are in fallout 1 albet dead). I don't appricate your smokescreen reponse. Why does it matter if one article is based off Paradise Falls or Megaton's destruction and another is off its survival. This doen't seam like a fanon wiki at all. And your attiude is no different then mine. All I'm saying is have your rules about no vampires, superheroes, aliens and other unlore friendly stuff but leave the rest of fallout 3 "canon" alone until there actually is some. :::::::LordVukodlak 01:15, February 26, 2011 (UTC) ::::::: It matters because if we go around letting one person base their article off of one outcome and another of another then how can we maintain any sort of cohesive fanon universe? If you don't like the way this fanon is set up you're more than welcome to not post. Composite 4 Name one cohesive fanon universe, and obviously I've changed my mind about posting here. LordVukodlak 01:32, February 26, 2011 (UTC) First of all, a cohesive and structured fanon universe makes it much easier and more fun for new members to try and create their own articles alongside those of other authors, and getting new and decent authors is what most wikis strive for. One universe makes sure the quality is maintained, whilst having a whole bunch of diverse universes makes it so much harder for readers to enjoy the fanon on this site. Secondly, try reading some of the state articles, like Texas and Louisiana.-----Seqeu0 11:27, February 26, 2011 (UTC) Too Many Rules This wiki has too many rules. Why can't you be just a little more lax about all of this? Pinguinus impennis 03:58, September 7, 2011 (UTC) :Can you be more specific?--OvaltinePatrol 04:34, September 7, 2011 (UTC) :It says that aliens aren't allowed, and intelligent animals must have joint approval from numerous users. Pinguinus impennis 02:22, September 8, 2011 (UTC) ::We're lax if we think you don't suck at this writing thing. But we've had bad experiences in the past with users who've used topics such as "aliens" and "intelligent animals" in the canon as a cover to write terrible articles. Poor quality is not what we're about. If you prove yourself as an able writer, we could grant you an exception, but we don't want to enable people to write poorly but allowing such things. It's just part of our quality rules. Also, such articles encourage overpowered factions and characters. Since we have a shared fanon universe, this has the potential to seriously hurt other user-created groups unless the writer can demonstrate the proper finesse to pull it off. --Twentyfists 02:36, September 8, 2011 (UTC) :Oh, I see now. We have something similar on Multiverses Wiki. How can I prove myself? And could you give me a brief overview of the fanon universes so far? Pinguinus impennis 02:55, September 8, 2011 (UTC) :Get some high-quality articles written strictly according to the rules and consistent with the overall style.--OvaltinePatrol 03:03, September 8, 2011 (UTC) :I can do that. So, can I start off by making some non-sapient animals? I had a cool idea for an animal called a Naked Mole Bear, and giant bats called Nightwings. Pinguinus impennis 03:10, September 8, 2011 (UTC) ::Write them up, and we'll see how it goes. If we've got comments or concerns, we'll voice them then. --Twentyfists 03:29, September 8, 2011 (UTC) ::OK, I made the Nightwings. Pinguinus impennis 03:38, September 8, 2011 (UTC) Adding the userspace createbox I set up Template:Userspacecreatebox a while ago for myself, and I thought it would be useful for other people since it would allow users to work on articles in their userspace at their own pace without worrying about deletion or sudden alterations without discussion. Users would be able to move the pages when they finish them. :Sascha Kreiger, Imperator des Sturmkrieg Sektor (Kaisar) 19:05, November 1, 2011 (UTC) These rules treat the editor like they're on a damn leash. No aliens? Seriously? Also, why the hell CAN'T you make an article about a specific piece of equipment or chems? There are mostly NO explainations for why these rules are enacted. For a fanon wiki, you can't really make a lot of fanon. My advice? Change the rules. These regulations are WAY too strict and I've seen many fanon wikis that NEVER had rules like these. That's all I'm going to say. XtranormalGeek 14:35, February 17, 2012 (UTC)